Entergy tries to pull another fast one in Vt. Yankee flap

The owners of the troubled Vermont Yankee nuclear plant are trying to pull another fast one – this time to avoid paying the cost of closing down the plant – much to the embarrassment of their good friends at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Brattleboro Reformer today reported that Entergy Corp., owners of the 40-year-old plant in Vernon, Vt., have sent a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission saying that now that the commission has extended the plant’s license for another 20 years, there’s no need to keep the millions of dollars in a decommissioning account as required by the NRC.

The company has notified that it’ll take the money out, and begin re-building the fund over the next 20 years.

The company is acting as though it’s a done deal.

But wait. The state of Vermont has not approved the license, and it is increasingly unlikely that it will. The whole matter comes before a federal judge beginning next month.

The NRC’s response is that it is by no means certain that the plant will be able to operate after it’s current expiration date of March 2012. In addition to the lawsuit, the NRC cites several other reviews that are being conducted, any of which could have an impact on the plant’s future.

Whether or not the company has the funds to cover the cost of closing the plant has been the source of some controversy. Over the past year, the plant has been put up for sale, attempted to enter into a merger, and tried to form  new company bringing together three nucear plants that it operates in the northeast,

None of these succeeded, and in particular the plan to form a new subsidiary to operate the northeast nuclear plants was shot down by a New York regulatory agency because they were not convinced the new subsidiary would be able to cover the cost of decommissioning the plants. They saw it as a ploy for Entergy to get out from under the obligation.

Conn. Environmental Commissioner Defends Haddam Sweetheart De

The man supposedly in charge of protecting the Connecticut’s environment has finally broken his silence on a land swap in which a significant parcel of conservation land was given to a group of developers.

Commissioner Daniel Esty spoke to a group of disgruntled Haddam residents demanding to know why he approved the controversial land swap deal. Esty had remained silent throughout the discussion about the deal, and decided to answer questions only after it was a done deal.

At issue was a 17-acre parcel along the Connecticut River which was purchased by the state Dept. of Environmental Protection for $1.3 million in 2003 with funds meant to preserve important parcels of conservation land. A group of developers who own a banquet facility next door decided it would boost businesss if they could build a small inn or some other attractive business there.

They offered to swap a piece of land they owned elsewhere in town for the land next door. This was 87 acres of land that these business bozos had bought two years ago for $400,000 for a housing development that went bust. No one was willing to buy it.

Esty claims it’s a good deal - 87 acres for 17 acres – but look at the relative values.

Esty told the group there was no legal restriction to selling it (giving it away would be more accurate) to a private developer. He also defended the swap on the basis of the amount of land the state would acquire.

“The prospect of getting five times as much land was attractive,” Esty is reported to have told the group. Not a word about the importance of preserving important habitat along the river. No consideration for the ecological or environmental value of the land. Only the acreage matters, and the business interests of a few developers.

In Connecticut the fox is in charge of the henhouse.            

Is BOEMRE positioning itself to harass offshore wind farms?

At first glance it seems like a good idea – regulating worker safety on offshore renewable energy projects.

“We are committed to ensuring that offshore renewable energy development is conducted safely,” said Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management, Regulation and Enforcement director Michael Bronwich, according to a story by UPI.http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/08/02/BOEMRE-reviews-safety-of-offshore-energy/UPI-74091312283414/?spt=hs&or=er He was announcing a study on the issue that will be ready a year from now. No sense rushing into things.

It sounds good. It also sounds like something OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) should be doing. It also adresses only “renewable energy” projects, leaving out things like oil rigs.

A month before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded last year, the agency heard complaints about safety issues on the rig. When they asked BP about it, they were assured everything was fine, and so they left it at that. A month later 11 workers were dead and the biggest oil spill in history was under way.

The agency went on to help BP minimize the extent of the spill and the extent of the environmental damage. At that time they were know as the Mining and Minerals Service, but when their cozy relationship with the oil industry was exposed, they decided it was time for a name change.

To go back to this new initiative.

 Agencies and regulations already exist for worker safety. The oil industry has made it abundantly clear that they view alternative energies as their mortal enemy. Pardon me for being cynical, but it sure feels like they’re prodding BOEMRE to make trouble for these emerging sources of energy.

Oil Companies Bind & Gag U.S. Scientist over Arctic Oil Drilling

Figuratively speaking, of course.

But the fact is that for the past several months the U.S. Interior Department’s Inspector General has been investigating wildlife biologist Charles Monnett for reasons they have yet to reveal. Then last month, he was abruptly suspended and ordered not to speak to the press or his colleagues.

Could he be connected to some terrorist cell, bent on destruction?

It doesn’t seem likely. For one thing the government is always happy to parade suspected terrorists out to the news media.

So what could be so serious that he’s been suspended and no one can talk about why. Lucky for us, his co-workers and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) aren’t afraid to talk. They say Monnett’s being harassed by the government because he’s making life difficult for the oil companies that want to drill in the Arctic.

Remember all those pictures of distressed polar bears swimming around looking for ice floes to rest on? It generated enough public pressure to get the polar bear declared a threatened species. It Monnett who first noticed several drowned polar bears while he was working on a research project about wales. He and a colleague wrote a short paper speculating that the melting polar ice cap and resulting open water was making it more difficult for polar bears.

PEER says that the oil industry has been lobbying hard to get the permitting process expedited.

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich is clearly on their Christmas gift list. In April, flanked by several oil company executives, he announced that he was filing a bill to create a permitting “coordinator” to do away with pesky oversight by agencies like the Interior Department that gave the oil industry “heartburn.”

Monnett’s story has been reported in papers like the UK’s Guardian, but is almost completely absent from the American media.

I've provided links if you want to read more.

Greed Trumps Conservation in Connecticut

Connecticut Gov. Daniel P. Malloy has signed into law a bill that paves the way for swapping an ecologically-significant state-owned wildlife sanctuary along the Connecticut River for a developer’s unwanted and relatively worthless parcel elsewhere in the state.

Beyond the loss of an important habitat, Gov. Mallory’s thoughtless acceptance of the claim that a developer’s desire to enhance his business interests outweighs the broader but less monetarily quantifiable need to preserve an ecologically important parcel of land, puts all conservation efforts in jeopardy.

The parcel in question is a 17 acre wildlife refuge along the Connecticut River in Haddam, Conn., purchased – with taxpayer money – for $1.3 million in 2003 by the state under a program meant to preserve open space. That would have seemed to ensure that the land would have remained undeveloped. Not so!

The land sits next door to the Riverhouse banquet facility owned by a group of developers who believe a small inn or something similar would help their business. They just happen to have a parcel of land in another part of town which they bought as part of a previously failed business venture. They paid about $400,000 two years ago for the property. They have been unable to sell it or do anything with it since then.

Then they got the bright idea that they could unload it on the state for the far more desirable property next to their restaurant. They have the backing of the local business community and at least one powerful state legislator. The governor apparently agreed with them.

There may be a few bumps along the way before the deal is done. For one, independent appraisers need to verify that the swap is a fair deal. At first glance it wouldn't seem so, given the difference in value, but given Connecticut’s well-deserved reputation for political corruption and its abysmal record on environmental issues, I’m not holding out much hope.

Exxon’s latest oil spill just more of the same

From those wonderful folks at Exxon (remember the Exxon Valdez?) we have more of the same, but this time they’ve chosen to befoul the Yellowstone River with 42,000 gallons of crude oil. It may not be on quite the same scale as the Alaska disaster, but it reflects that nothing has changed in the 22 years since the Alaskan disaster.

Records indicate that just a few months ago, the company was warned by the Dept. of Transportation that the pipeline that ruptured was not buried deep enough, that it had suffered some corrosion damage, that maps showing the location of shut-off valves were not accurate, and that their reponse plans were completely inadequate.

Not to worry, was the company response. They’ll take care of it first chance they get. In the meantime, they’ll continue operating because nothing had happened yet.  Until last Friday night, that is, when the rupture occurred.

And their response? Send out a relative handful of people in hazmat suits to pose for photographers, give them a box of extra thick facial tissues to wipe up any oil that washes up on shore, and declare the cleanup is under way.

Meanwhile, people all along the river report getting sick from the fumes, wondering why the cleanup is going so slowly, and wondering how bad will it get.

No one really knows. All we can do is sit and wait. How much profit do we suppose Exxon made in the time it took to write this?

                                       

Unholy Alliance: Governments and the nuclear industry

Emails leaked a few days ago show the British government was more concerned with controlling bad public relations for the nuclear industry following the Fukashima disaster than with the safety of its nuclear power plants.  The government had already committed to building several more nuclear plants and wanted to blunt any opposition.

This morning an explosion and fire was reported at a French nuclear plant. Government officials confirmed there was a minor fire, but made no mention of the explosion, and insisted there was no threat to the public. Local officials were taking no chances. Swimming and fishing were banned from the area near the plant.

The plant near Drome is one of France’s oldest, and was recently given a 10-year license extension, even though 32 safety concerns were revealed last week. Ignoring public concern over nuclear power, President Sarkozy last week pledged an additional $1.5 billion for nuclear power development.

In Vermont, legislators concerned about the conditions at the aging Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, Vt., have voted not to approve a 20-year extension of the plant’s operating license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has teamed up with Entergy Corp., the plant’s owner, in a lawsuit against the state’s action. An Entergy lawyer last week argued in federal court, in part, that the state has no business being concerned with the safety of its citizens, only whether or not the plant can deliver “reliable” power.

Apparently they have a problem with democracy as well. They further argued that when these elected representatives voted against the license extension, they were reacting to the wishes of their constituency.

Two months after the nuclear disaster began at Fukashima (it’s still going on you just don’t hear about it) the nuclear plant operators and the Japanese government had to admit they had been lying about the seriousness of the disaster of the plant.

Regardless of the pros and cons of nuclear power, how can an honest discussion of the issue take place in an atmosphere of lies and cover-ups?